Talk:Hatha yoga

Repetition
The info you added is already present Here. Also Kundalini is a late addition.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The early texts section lacks balance. It overstates the Pali Canon case, unlike what is in the source (see the first two columns of Mallison's page 770). The later section of this article gives more details, but it is poorly writtten. Which Pali text uses the term "Hatha Yoga" or equivalent? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Page 770 says that in later formulations of Hatha Yoga, Kundalini is added. It is not early.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So? Mallison is explicitly discussing Hatha Yoga in Sanskrit texts of Hinduism on page 770, and that we must include too. Which Pali text is it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are saying the exact opposite of Mallinson. Mallinson says Kundalini is a later addition to Hatha Yoga. You are saying its early.  VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be misreading Mallinson. FWIW, the so-called "Bindu" Upanishads are pretty old, by most estimates on their dating. See Nadabindu Upanishad, related *bindu texts, and Gavin Flood therein on the dating. There is a lot of literature on this. These were precursors to Hatha Yoga, per Mikel Burley. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word Kundalini in the Nadabindu Upanishad article.
 * Mallinson says on page 770 "In later formulations of Hatha Yoga....." He goes into detail on page 774.<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hatha Yoga article has been and is a lot more than Kundalini. It includes bindu, breathing exercises, mudras, etc. This article is in poor shape. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This section already lists the specific mudras and bandhas for every text.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So the issue that has been getting in the way here is that some of Mallinson's unique opinions are being held up as absolute truths. The kuṇḍalinī of the Kubjika cult is as old as any formulations of haṭha yoga that actually call themselves haṭha yoga. Haṭha yoga is mentioned in Buddhist texts first, but not described. That does not mean all the early forms of haṭha used kuṇḍalinī, but it is inaccurate to call it a 'late' addition. Mallinson presents the idea that haṭha refers to the bindu preservation techniques of the Vaiṣṇavs originally and that the tantric yogini cults appropriated it. This is unprovable, and there are serious problems with trying to go by the assumed dates of the few extant texts when thousands of manuscripts are known to be lost and the oldest mentions of the term lack descriptions. Mallinson never really defends his opinion, but uses it as his basis to attack David Gordon White's book Sinister Yogis in his essay The Yogi's Latest Trick. This Mallinson-original argument is a place where he disagrees with equally credible experts like David Gordon White and Alexis Sanderson who both credit Buddhist and Śaiva tantric cults like the forerunners of the Naṭhs with founding haṭha yoga. White even seems to think the cakras might come from Daoism. That also matches with the fact that the Buddhist and Śaiva tantrics who utilize kuṇḍalinī and caṇḍalī are still the main practitioners of haṭha in India and Nepal, all the mythology attributes it to them and most of the texts have the Nāṭha name in them. The only reason Mallinson insists the yogini cults were the later addition and the Vaiṣṇavs were first is probably because he has been a member of the Ramanandis since his undergrad days. If any non-Mallinson source describes kuṇḍalinī as a late addition to haṭha yoga I will be surprised.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mallinson's comments on White are notable. Which Sanderson source on Hatha yoga are you referring to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliance on Mallinson
It seems like a blatant error on Mallinson's part to claim that hatha originally was the semen preservation techniques of Vaishnav renunciants when he also claims hatha was a movement to bring yoga to householders...clearly householder hatha yoga could not coexist with the absolute sexual continence taught in the early texts (such as the mudra version of hatha in the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra). This is why some consider Śiva Samhita the first householder hatha yoga text: it encourages sexual union as opposed to using an internal feminine drop or obtaining uterine blood "by cunning"– instead one can release and then reabsorb mixed sexual essences through the vajroli mudra.

But it is also obvious that the retention model was a reaction to proto-tantric sexual rituals that go back at least to the Vratyas, Skull-bearers and other antinomian groups that have been using sexual magic since the time of the Vedas and were foundational to tantra. These same practices were central to the Tantric Buddhist sources that include our oldest descriptions of hatha, and according to Tibetan tradition, was reformed and internalized in Tibet.

It seems like an arbitrary choice on Mallinson's part to say that hatha refers to this Vaishnav practice first, regardless of how Mughal artists painted yogis or how many Vaiśnav texts are extant in sanskrit. Remember how the majority of early Indian Buddhist texts are lost to history and that Vaiśnavism has been dominant over Śaivism for royal patronage for most of the period in question...of course Vaiśnavs have more surviving texts. Mallinson himself says that scribes were prone to add new lineages at the beginning of old texts, and Dominick Wujastyk wrote a great article on how quickly the old texts deteriorate and disappear if not actively preserved and copied.

Any scholar of Tamil or Tibetan will also tell you that Mallinson is ignoring all the non-sanskrit sources on hatha yoga because he is a Sanskrit philologist. Mallinson also ignores all the aspects of Kundalini within hatha yoga that notably entered through the western stream of tantra (see Dory Heilijgers Seelen and Mark Dyczkowski for more about that)...the Kubjika cult is still the oldest source for most of what we consider hatha, including the image of the coiled snake and the classical cakra system used in most of these sanskrit hatha manuals. Even the Pañcaratra's Bhāgavatam Purāṇa seems to imitate these cakras and concepts in its 'virat rupa' section (although exact sections of Purāṇas are difficult to date because they are compendiums). The oldest usages of the word hatha (according to Mallinson and Jason Birch) come from tantric Buddhist sources...sources that overlapped considerably with Kaulism (a term used in both Buddhist and Hindu traditions).

So the word hatha does not seem to come from Vaisnav texts, but Buddhist texts. The concept of mudras seems to come from śaiva tantra. The concept of sexual union as ritual also predates Mallinson's sources. So by what makeshift definition of hatha can he really assign it to Vaiśnavism? Really the logic by which Mallinson claims Vaiśnavs started hatha yoga is mostly the opinions you would expect of a Vaiśnav scholar who only looks at Sanskrit texts. The Hathayogapradipika cites a lineage of Nathas (who are saints to both Śaiva and Buddhist siddha traditions, not Vaiśnavism) in its opening lines. The Śiva Samhita is also part of the Śri Vidya tradition (the southern stream of Śaiva tantra, related to Kaulism). I think we need a broader basis in this article and less emphasis on what we can mostly call the thoughts of a singlular modern scholar that have not yet stood the test of time or scholastic critique. Right now this article is almost a love letter to Jim...even the sections that were not just borrowed from his encyclopedia entry.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Iṣṭa Devatā: Allow me to skip your personal views. It is simply incorrect to allege that article relies only on Mallinson. For example, Mikel Burley, Mark Singleton, Mircea Eliade, David White, Gerald Larson and others, each are cited a numerous times. Summary from "peer reviewed" scholarly articles by Mallison will stay in this article, because they are RS and meet content guidelines. If you find additional views and reliable source(s), that have not been covered and summarized, we can expand, improve and clarify the article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * James Mallinson now says the oldest text to teach hatha techniques is the amrtasiddhi which he states is a vajrayana buddhist text. He, along with nearly everyone else, thinks hatha came from a tantric milieu that transcended specific cults. The info in the lead is a misrepresentation of a thesis that was on a very specific point. And even though the vast majority of sources credit the naths with some formational role in hatha, a single voice is being used (selectively) to defend the opposite opinion. While it is an important opinion, it is not the academic consensus in any way. Both the first texts to say hatha and to teach hatha are buddhist tantric scripts according to Mallinson and Birch. (As an aside, the natha saints are also Vajrayana Buddhist saints, meaning they are part of the original milieu hatha came from). This is a big part of the talk he gave at the SOAS sanskrit reading room (you can watch it on the SOAS facebook page) and his conclusions in his essay on the Amrtasiddhi, both more recent than the citation being used. Maybe the intro could focus on where it did come from, instead of trying to say where it didn't come from. It just comes across as sectarian squabbling. It is all highly contentious and unprovable as it is to assign credit to one cult over another. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hatha yoga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616025645/http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf to http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616025645/http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf to http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616025645/http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf to http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331094110/http://www.yogajournal.com/press/yoga_in_america to http://www.yogajournal.com/press/yoga_in_america

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Images
Chiswick Chap: Re your message, I merely moved the two images closer to the appropriate section where Joga Pradīpikā is mentioned. The collage used to be the lead image in the older version. It was removed in favor of an image from the Joga Pradīpikā. That felt like an overemphasis of the Joga Pradīpikā. Per our MOS:IMAGES, the collage looks like a better image because it is clearer and more focused on the asana, sans all the dark scenery. Further, by placing the Joga Pradīpikā images closer to where it is mentioned, it aids understanding it in the appropriate context. I am open to any other image collage of asanas that is accurate and meaningfully improves the article from the reader's perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There may be more than one issie with the images. On the collage the obvious problem is the strong impression that hatha yoga is the same as modern yoga which it certainly is not. The collage shows modern clothing and a modern class. It is quite unsuitable for the lead but might illustrate the difference between HY and MY perhaps. There is no historic continuity between the two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We also seem to have lost the diagram of the mechanism of HY. At least I can't see it any more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap: About six months ago, you started the Modern yoga article. The article seems to have received little scrutiny, and as of June 21 2019, you have added 99%+ of that article's content and 97%+ of the edits. I just read through some of the sources you cited in that article. It looks like a WP:CFORK case, with other serious issues. I will review it in the coming days and weeks, clean it up, and see if it should be a stand-alone article or merged. You imply "Modern yoga" is something different than "[traditional] yoga in modern times". You allege "hatha yoga is not the same as modern yoga" and you allege "there is no historic continuity between the two". The scholarly sources disagree. Mark Singleton, for example, in his Introduction chapter of Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice discusses this. He is clearly questioning whether there is any difference at all, in terms of beliefs, practices and the ontological status (pp. 17–19). Yes, like all fields of human knowledge and practice, there is ongoing innovation, an innovation trend in yoga that was started by the Buddhist, Hindus and Jains long long ago. It is one thing to say that Hatha yoga texts teach "limited number of asanas" or "mention 84 asanas" or "asanas were a part or a subordinate practice in an overall yoga multi-step program", and it is quite another thing to leap and allege that there "is no historic continuity between the two". Elizabeth De Michelis, in her A History of Modern Yoga, uses the expression "Modern Yoga" to refer to "the graft of a Western branch onto the Indian tree of yoga" (she admits it is a provisional heuristic, and links it to some developments over the last 150 years – she mentions 1849 and 1896 on p. 2). That, and the definition of Modern yoga that she gives, is unlike what you say and what is in the article you created. It is strange that someone has editorialized in that relatively new article, "Perhaps the first use of the term 'Modern yoga' was in the title of Ernest Wood's 1948 book" in the lead sentence (a scholarly source must conclude that). Further, hers is not a settled view, which means we need to keep NPOV in mind. Singleton expresses his disagreement with De Michelis. Andrea Jain who has written articles on the modern Western practice of yoga – linking modern yoga to the early 19th-century as well if I remember right – discusses how hatha yoga was salvaged and how it evolved into modern yoga. So the issue is with your allegations and that six-month-old article, not the proposal that we include a collage of hatha yoga postures in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (ps) I did remove an image that lacked any external source, both at wikimedia commons and in this article. That makes it WP:OR. If you have a scholarly source, please provide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The mention of Ernest Wood was by a scholar, I'm sorry I cited Wood directly without the other citation, I'll look it out. I've studied De Michelis, Jain, and Singleton (among others) but that discussion belongs elsewhere really. Given that hatha yoga was practised for many centuries and virtually died out by the 19th century makes the modern appearance of the collage very odd if not totally anachronistic. An earlier image from one of the various illustrated hatha yoga manuscripts would avoid the problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead
According to the GA-review, A strong lede, most certainly lets the reader know what's coming. I have to disagree; I had to scroll through the article to "Goals" to find out what Hatha yoga is about. In contrast, this text

is WP:UNDUE; ot contains more information than is contained in the article itself. I'm going to rewrite part of the lead, therefor. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm done; up to you for the fine-tuning. For convenience, I turned

into

Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! The lead with its 20th century perspective had indeed slipped behind the updates to the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)